• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Official Feb. 12th Primary Thread (Obama/McCain Beltway SWEEP SWEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Triumph said:
It's one of the many things she's retconned on- she went around and made pitches for it in the development stage. Now, of course, she is against it. Or wants to "revisit" it. Or something.
Click to expand...

Kinda. She was originally against it but when they went through it anyway she let it go. She never campaign heavily in favor of it, it was more of a passive acceptance then anything. And now she is critizing it.

I really don't think she can be blamed much for NAFTA.
 
P

Piper Az

Member
grandjedi6 said:
Yeah I've read that before. But what do you expect? Hillary to outright critisize her husband's Presidential decisions?
Click to expand...

So she should cave in to loyalty/croynism over what she thinks is right? Now, that's a great candidate for President.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Piper Az said:
So she should cave in to loyalty/croynism over what she thinks is right? Now, that's a great candidate for President.
Click to expand...

No but should she complain at small issues constantly. Alot of people thought NAFTA was a good idea at first and some support it even today. How was she to know the later effects of NAFTA. You can't fight every fight out there, as a politician you have to choose the important ones. And she obviously thought NAFTA wasn't worth the argument at that point.


I just don't think NAFTA is that big of an argument against Clinton. Its not like she ever seriously supported it even.
 
S

sangreal

Member
grandjedi6 said:
No she hasn't. She has always had no opinion. And the only evidence shows she was leaning against
Click to expand...
"I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America." - Hillary 2004
 
T

Triumph

Banned
Mandark said:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Of...=gbs_search_s&sig=UHkpO7rWWJuiJjUY5mbW7EdGuto

http://books.google.com/books?id=Tv...4KWzAS-2_yPDQ&sig=fx9CFbRZ2wXtSxuEBDNypDm-idc


I don't think you can really put her on the hook for NAFTA. Maybe for not opposing it strongly enough, but that's a stretch.
Click to expand...
No, but you certainly don't let her get away with saying she's always been "against" NAFTA. And if she wants to run on her husband's accomplishments and a sense of 90's nostalgia (and she does) then NAFTA certainly qualifies as part of that. Can't have it both ways.
 
M

mj1108

Member
Obama strikes back again!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UR2E700&show_article=1

Article said:
Obama has cultivated an image of being above the fray, and his criticism of Clinton usually comes in the form of a response to her charges. But he's not above upping the ante, as he did Friday during a stop in Milwaukee.

During a news conference, he was asked about Clinton's accusation that he watered down a bill regulating the nuclear industry. He pointed out that Clinton is criticizing him for a bill she voted for and touted on her Web site.

"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," he told reporters.

At a subsequent rally at the downtown Midwest Airlines Center, Obama brought up her latest criticism of him as someone who gives a good speech but doesn't have much action to show for it. Clinton told voters in Cincinnati Friday, "This primary election offers a very big choice to the voters of Ohio. You can choose speeches or solutions."

"She's right," Obama said in Milwaukee. "Speeches alone don't do anything. But you know what, neither do negative attacks."
Click to expand...
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
sangreal said:
I don't have a link to the original source, but here is a meet the press transcript discussing it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21869109/page/3/

They attribute it to a News Teleconference on 1/5/2004

MTP video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw
Click to expand...

And you know what? Meet the Press is the only source for that quote. No one else has ever refered to it and I have never been able to find the quote's source. The fact that everyone constantly throws that quote out there yet no one in the political realm uses it, makes me think that quote is either false or taken out of context
 
M

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Triumph said:
No, but you certainly don't let her get away with saying she's always been "against" NAFTA. And if she wants to run on her husband's accomplishments and a sense of 90's nostalgia (and she does) then NAFTA certainly qualifies as part of that. Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that.

The message of her campaign seems to be "I was instrumental in the Clinton administration, except for the bad parts."

As far as I can tell, the reality is that she was a very close adviser who lost on UHC, won on S-CHIP, did very little actual working the bureaucracy between, and certainly can't take credit for the economic boom which is the cornerstone of 90's nostalgia.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Loudninja said:
No its a new Super Tuesday coming up next week.
Click to expand...

You mean Mini-Super Tuesday? That would be March 4th. Next Tuesday is just a normal tuesday with the Wisconsin, Washington and Hawaii primaries
 
L

Loudninja

Member
grandjedi6 said:
You mean Mini-Super Tuesday? That would be March 4th. Next Tuesday is just a normal tuesday with the Wisconsin, Washington and Hawaii primaries
Click to expand...

Naw, MSNBC call it Super Tuesday, with Wisconsin, Washington and Hawaii.
 
Z

Zeed

Banned
Loudninja said:
Naw, MSNBC call it Super Tuesday, with Wisconsin, Washington and Hawaii.
Click to expand...
I find it difficult to believe that MSNBC would say that, because it's outright wrong.

And even if they did, why parrot it here? Things are confusing enough as they are.

March 4 is Junior Tuesday, by the way.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Deku said:
any delegates for the dems on tuesday, I thought they already chose them last Saturday.
Click to expand...

Washington? No, hte primary is non-binding and doesn't effected the democratic delegates. But it does allocate the other half of the Republican delegates
 
T

Triumph

Banned
v1cious said:
do we have any polling data from Washington yet?
Click to expand...
Washington's primary doesn't matter- they had caucuses last weekend that Obama won in a big way. No delegates get allocated from the primary- it's meaningless.
 
V

v1cious

Banned
Triumph said:
Washington's primary doesn't matter- they had caucuses last weekend that Obama won in a big way. No delegates get allocated from the primary- it's meaningless.
Click to expand...

i know, i'm just curious how bad Huckabee's getting raped.
 
G

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
HolyStar said:
So is Obama's middle name Hussien? I need to know to shut some people up in Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. But you should still make them shut up because it doesn't really matter what his middle name is
 
L

Loudninja

Member
Zeed said:
I find it difficult to believe that MSNBC would say that, because it's outright wrong.

And even if they did, why parrot it here? Things are confusing enough as they are.

March 4 is Junior Tuesday, by the way.
Click to expand...

They DID say it, why would I make this up?

Edit: It does not matter guys :D
 
Z

Zeed

Banned
Found a lengthy article about the current situation with Edwards:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4281404&page=1

It seems that he is indeed leaning Clinton, but at the same time is apparently still "torn". He may still remain neutral, or he might even throw in behind Barack. It's described as a "heart" versus "head" dilemma, with Obama being the former and Clinton somehow being the latter.

The reasons he's reluctant to endorse Hillary are the same ones that we've been bringing up in this thread. But at the same time he seems to resent Obama and doubt his mettle.

So what can we do?

Appeal to his conscience and write him a letter.
 
S

StopMakingSense

Member
Zeed said:
It seems that he is indeed leaning Clinton, but at the same time is apparently still "torn". He may still remain neutral, or he might even throw in behind Barack. It's described as a "heart" versus "head" dilemma, with Obama being the former and Clinton somehow being the latter.
Click to expand...

I am starting to believe he just won't endorse, this election is too much of a powder-keg.
 
Z

ZeroTolerance

Junior Member
29z4ho2.jpg
\


Is it just me or is there some kinda of bias with the picture above ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Blue Flush: GOP leading Democrats on generic poll for first time this election cycle
21
2K
Future replied
  • Locked
2 in 10 Clinton Primary Voters Weren't Going To Vote For Obama (2008 Flashback)
16
3K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
1 In 10 Sanders Primary Voters Ended Up Supporting Trump
7 8 9 10 11
524
44K
Ekai replied
[Atlantic] America Has a Drinking Problem
2 3
149
18K
Hawking Radiation replied
  • Locked
Hillary's interview w/ A. Cooper: Sander's supporters are still incredibly divisive
2 3 4 5 6
288
21K
ModBot 2 replied
Top Bottom